>> inside washington is brought you part by the american federation of government employees, proud to make america work. for more reformation about afge and membership, visit afge.org. >> what do you think of when you see a tree? a treatment for cancer? alternative fuel for our cars? qc hold for a new environment or food, clothing, shelter? we do. growing ideas.

>> the next time you hear them say don't worry about it, we will get a few other people to pay their fair share, watch out, middle-class, the taxpayer is coming to you. >> the vice-presidential debate. >> folks, use your common sense. will you do you trust on this? a man who introduced a bill that will raise 8 $6,400 a year, knowing it and passing it and romney saying he will sign it, or me and the president? >> did joe biden stop the wave?omney >> you are going to win? >> yes fauquier >> also, the ghazi. over ben doe >> and affirmative action returns to the supreme court. >> i hope the court rules that a student's race and ethnicity should not be considered when

applying to the university of texas. >> an instant cnn poll gave the vice eventual debate to all rain. and instead cbs poll gave the debate to paujoe biden. >> falling exchange on medicare and social security. >> medicare and social zuccotti did so much for my own family. we will not jeopardize this program, but we have to save it. >> you are changing the program from a guaranteed benefit. the bottom line is that people have to pay more money out of their pocket. >> prior to the the vice- presidential debate, the

question, should obama supporters start freaking out to? [laughter] did the vice-president head of the freak out? >> i think he probably did. for the days, for the people who were cheering him on, he did with the president did not do the week before. he answered everything that bryant had to say -- that ryan had to say. if he had not indulge in that small a time, the biden tick, you would have said that he had walked the floor with paul ryan. >> pick a winner. >> if you read the transcript, it was a draw. if you heard it on the radio, biden won. if you watched it on tv, biden lost.

if you heard it on talking points, it was about even. you heard it on the raider, joe biden was in control. paul ryan was differential. if you saw on tv, that mad smile, that jack nicholson smile, that condescension and eye roll, i think that it deeply damaged what to joe biden had done in substance. >> some times, you have to measure success by comparison. compared to president obama as performance last week, and joe biden did an outstanding job. he did not drop his head. he knew his points. he was aggressive. but he smiles too much. he smiled at times when it was unnecessary. but that is matched by the smirk that came on the face of

paul ryan. so it came to a drop. it was an animated discussion. i thought that joe biden held a course and made the points he needed to make. >> basically, to-person debates are far better when both people show up. [laughter] and they showed up, unlike a week ago when only one showed up. i thought it was good and it served both parties. paul ryan was preternaturally cool for his first national real test like that. and i thought joe biden had democrats crawling back in off the ledge where they had been from the 23rd floor window ready to plunge. i think he reenergize them. i think he made the case. and i think he nailed korean a couple of times, specifically on

the -- nailed paul ryan a couple of times, specifically on the lack of any specifics and on the stimulus bonds. those were one of the few times that paul ryan knew better than to answer. >> what about medicare and social security and up with the bill class? >> -- up with the middle class? >> it went beyond the facts. but at least you had a discussion about the economy and the positions for both sides, as opposed to last week when, yes, it was a one-sided conversation. they did not touch on some things. immigration is a good example. but education is another one. but it was guided pretty much by

the moderator who did a great job conducting this. i don't find the debate wanting on substantive issues. >> if you're my age and you are watching this thing and you're worried about medicare and social security, which of these individuals do you believe? >> it would depend on who you are predisposed to believe. joe biden is a had a liberal, a new deal liberal. i am not averse to point out that, whereas his own president is willing to contemplate raising the retirement age, joe biden said, no, we will not touch these things. these things are sacred. everyone over the age of nine knows that come if you don't know anything -- if you don't do anything for medicare and social security, it will not be around. he made the case. we are the party of social security. the republicans largely oppose it. yes, that is true, for 50 years. what will you do when you're on

president has said that medicare will die unless it is reformed? so if you're inclined toward that new deal liberalism, you will accept whatever joe biden had said. if you listen to paul ryan, and he was somewhat deferential, he said we have to amend it, we have to change it and here is how we will do it. >> a week after the first presidential debate, why is the president still talking about it? >> and that debate, what happened? >> gov. romney had a good night. i had a bad night. >> how bad? >> it is not the first bad that i have ever had. >> if the polls were to be believed, it was a bad, bad night. the president was still talking about a week later. checking the polls, pew, romney's performance erases obama leed.

>> my good conservative friend was telling me about the sinister conspiracy of the polls. that they were all rigged, giving the impression that the liberals are running away with the election. and all the sudden you have conservatives hijacking the polls and you have dispirited and liberals. the liberals were dispirited. there was a sense of real puzzlement, where was the president? why did he not show up? these are people who have been picking out their inaugural outfits. the romney people, prior to that debate were heading for the lifeboats. they thought it was over and they were going to concentrate on holding on to the house and may be winning the senate. it was transformational in that sense. in the political world, however,

has not changed how people feel about mitt romney. they still feel he is out of touch and that remains a problem, even for charles. >> the columnist, neocon, he said monday was the day political polling died. [laughter] what do you think? >> i dunno about what to john was saying. but my view last week -- i know mark keeps very close track of what i say -- i felt that this conspiracy stuff about the polls was ridiculous. you can make an argument that the polls are using a model of the electorate of the wrong year. that.t even accepted the polls are almost unerring in their accuracy in the primary and in the general election. but it was a real switch. it was a real change.

the only quibble would have wet mark is that, you know that led where the liberals were on what for? we were on that floor the week before and we were happy to vacate it. [laughter] >> the space is available. >> the view is fantastic. >> on cooking the books, what about the 7.8% unemployment ever ked?g coaxeo >> the thing that really affected the obama-romney debate was that romney came across as somebody with some stature. you could really visualize him in the white house. fast forward to the debate between paul ryan and vice president died in and uc paul ryan not as vice-president, but perhaps as the head of

management and budget. [crosstalk] >> the girl wants to say something. >> why should she be allowed? >> well, because she should. i thought it was interesting that ryan was talking about the economic stuff. he has his own, some of which you can criticize for his veracity, but he did fine. when he got to foreign policy, you could almost see the flip cards in his brain. it has no sign of real knowledge other than having crammed for the exam. >> i am glad you brought up

foreign-policy. >> we did not know they wanted more security. >> what we are witnessing as we turn on our television screens these days is the absolute unraveling of the obama foreign policy. >> martha raddatz began by asking about the attack on the benghazi. dide of been gauz turns out that this was not a protest that was hijacked by extremists. it was a planned attack carried out by heavily armed individuals. there was a house hearing on it to this week. the state department was criticized for turning down requests for more help in securing the consulate. this used to be your field. if they asked for more security, why did they not get it? and is there an attempt to

recover? >> -- to a cover-up? >> i have been in the position where i ask for something and did not get it from headquarters. i did it during the time of the cold war. it was the same kind of problem. this is the field headquarters issue that you have. obviously, that request should have been granted. it came from the details security officer. that is beyond the bowels of the bureaucracy of the state department. that would like it to the secretary, much less to the white house. >> what about the cover-up? >> i don't see a cover-up. we did not know enough and

sometimes you should now get out there and make judgments without knowing the facts. susan rice obviously did not have all the packfacts. this was just a reaction to the film. i don't think there's a coverup. i think this is a situation where they demand more and they say more, but they said too much in the beginning. but that is not a cover-up. >> it is a lousy one and one that unravel very quickly by their own hand. they are the ones who had been providing -- we all know that there are ways to drag defeat and prevent this from going to a hearing. >> there was no demonstration. there was not a mob. there was no reaction to what happened in cairo. there -- that was a complete invention. if you look at the video of susan rice on the five shows, she was screaming in terror with

all of this investment of the maas and none of it was remotely true. what we are learning now is that, from the first day, the people on the ground look down on the video cameras and saudi ambassador walked out with a turkish delegate at half past 8:00 p.m. in the evening. there's no one on the street. the attack happened an hour and 10 minutes later. they knew there was none of this and they had communicated that with the state department. everybody knew. this is not believable. either susan rice is completely clueless, then why is she out there and why is she inventing, or they knew, but after a week of spiking the ball over al qaeda and sama bin laden, they did not want to admit that was al qaeda on the run in killing the ambassador, the first time in 30 years. >> i hear which rose has to say. it just really gets into home park conspiracy area.

yeah did you come out of the convention and then there is a master conspiracy to contain it, inevitably it will come out. you have formed -- you have four families involved for one thing. you have american colleagues involved. this is going to come out. ineptitude? absolutely. and perhaps to the level at least of may be firing someone. but the idea of coming out of the share of the convention and keep this bubble going or whatever it is -- >> how do you think joe biden responded to this? >> i don't think he answered the question. >> he did. he told a falsehood. >> it was his worst moment. he was smart enough to sort of have twisted the question so he did not answer it. but it was really the hardest

part for him because there is an answer. the answer is there was a screw up. >> at the time -- remember how the embassy in cairo was under siege and the walls had been breached. and you had a crowd in benghazi but for different reasons -- >> there was no crowd. there were not carrying signs. >> it was not a birthday party. it was a group of individuals with weapons storming the consulate. >> that is now called the demonstration. >> the one thing that joe biden did was tell an outright falsehood. he said we did not know that they wanted extra security. they were demanding security. they were crying for it.

>> we will have to agree to disagree on this one. affirmative action returns to the supreme court. >> the last times the united states supreme court and of the university of texas was 60 years ago. the issue then was about excluding african-americans and we were on the wrong side of history. >> that is bill powers, president of the university of texas at austin. this time, the case is about a white woman was denied admission. could this be the end of affirmative action? >> yes. it is a bit different because, and some point, when texas the right of affirmative action, their minority numbers drop off the cliff. george bush signed a state law that gave the top 10% of any class the right to go to ut.

and then gave it a bit of diversity because most of the schools in texas are defacto segregated. but the numbers were still dropping or stagnant. so they have a huge minority population and a day added to what is in affect affirmative- action. >> i am not a court counter. but it seems like this might be a split. it is a split, the decision stands. but we are in another area now. when the founders wrote the constitution, i was 3/5 of a person. the issue of getting into a school was not even there. regarding the issue is beyond desegregation. it is diversity. diversity of this they had nothing to do with the fifth panel. >> i think this is one that we

are wrestling with and i don't think that there has been a clear resolution in the society at large. and i think it is very open. but i agree with nina this could be the beginning of the and. >> it is a matter principle. do you judge anybody by the color of their skin or the content of their character and that is what is at stake here. >> let's go back to the election. ohio, it is very important. you were there for a focus 3. >> peter did a focus group of 12 undecided voters in the columbus area. as we all know, the last 12 elections, ohio has elected a winner. no president has won the presidency without carrying ohio. these undecided voters were interesting. one woman who was very sympathetic to obama made the observation about his performance. she said, i expected him to be stronger than he was.

>> in the debate. >> yes. you can criticize his indifference or his attitude or condescension. but when you start talking about an american president not being strong, that transcends party, philosophy or anything. we will tolerate a president who is dull, not particularly bright or maybe even a little boring. but americans will not tolerate a president who is seen as weak. and that is something he has to address on tuesday. >> his political opponents have been charging that he is weak on foreign policy. >> he ought to be able to hold his own on that. he will be attacked. the line of attack is already known. we saw last night from paul rain and we heard before from mitt romney. now it is time for obama to respond to that. you know what romney will say because he gives romney the talking points.

[laughter] >> is that first thing in the morning? >> they call me at 6:00 a.m. every morning. i tell them, yes. >> it is better than what you guys do, which is to receive the talking points. i'm sorry. that was a low blow. >> i think mark is exactly right. what was really devastating in that debate was the perception of the president as weak and romney as presidential. that is the key difference. in 1980, people did not want to re-elect jimmy carter. but there were not prepared to go to reagan because they were afraid of him as a right-wing nut. he shows up at the debate and, oh, shucks, there he goes again. he is in avuncular. he is not a guy who's going to blow up the world and the

election is over. obama is not where carter was. he is a lot stronger. >> and mitt romney is not where reagan was. >> that is right, but he's still on the edge. that will not be a landslide. it will be a small margin. but if you reach the threshold of being acceptable as being the president, as strong, then you can press it in the election under the circumstances. >> with the previous debate, you had them at the podium and last night you had them on the table. which is better for the voters? >> i think the table were swell. i like the town meeting format where individuals can walk and talk to the crowd. but i don't like the one where they are frozen in one position, standing in the same spot for 90 minutes. i couldn't do that. >> one of the things you have to watch and be struck with is the complete use of the split

screen. making the person who is not answering the question, what happens on the wine guys' faces almost as important as what the other guy's saying. it really is hard. you really have to work at it. obviously, romney and ryan looked a little better. butryan did this sickly sweet smile and bid wasen -- romney was smug, obama looked down and lockand -- >> the legitimate response is one of paying your. -- is one of a year. -- of anger.

the president was an emotional when romney was openly fabricating about administration policy and his own positions. and his failure to show any emotion, that belied to some viewers and voters a sense of weakness. >> thank you. see you next week. >> for a transcript of this broadcast, log onto inside a space washington.tv. >> inside washington is brought to you from the american federation of government employees, proud to make america work. abo afge and membership, visit